The Trouble with Background Checks
Employee screening has become a big business, but not always an accurate one
by Chad Terhune
Theodore Pendergrass was shocked in November, 2006, when the Walgreens
(WAG) pharmacy chain rejected his application for a store supervisor
job. The company told him a background-screening firm called
ChoicePoint (CPS) reported that a past employer had accused him of
"cash register fraud and theft of merchandise" totaling $7,313. "I
wanted to cry," Pendergrass says. The $4 billion business of
background screening is booming. Companies large and small are sorting
mostly mid- and lower-level job applicants based on information
compiled by ChoicePoint, its major rivals, and hundreds of smaller
competitors. Some employers have grown more vigilant about hiring
since the September 11 terrorist attacks. Others like the efficiency
of outsourcing tasks once handled by in-house human resources
departments or bosses who simply picked up the phone themselves.
Whatever their motives, employers are becoming more dependent on
mass-produced background reports that rely heavily on anonymous, and
sometimes inaccurate or unfair, sources.
Pendergrass' difficulties stemmed from a previous job at Rite Aid
(RAD). By late 2005, when he was 25 years old, he had reached the
first rung of management as a shift supervisor in a Rite Aid store in
Philadelphia. His bosses trusted him to oversee cashiers, bank
deposits, and merchandise deliveries. Then, in January, 2006, a store
official accused him of stealing goods and underpaying for DVDs. He
denied the accusations, but the official said police were waiting
outside to arrest him if he did not confess. Pendergrass wrote a
statement but wouldn't admit to theft. He was soon fired anyway.
Later, at a hearing for unemployment compensation, Pendergrass was
vindicated. A state labor referee ruled that Rite Aid had not proved
its allegations and awarded him nearly $1,000 in benefits. But Rite
Aid had already submitted its theft report to a database used by more
than 70 retailers and run by ChoicePoint, the largest screening firm
for corporate employers in the U.S. Based in a leafy Atlanta suburb,
ChoicePoint says it checks applicants for more than half of the
country's 100 biggest companies, including Bank of America (BAC),
UnitedHealth Group (UNH), and United Parcel Service (UPS). Because of
Pendergrass' tainted ChoicePoint file, retailers CVS Caremark (CVS)
and Target (TGT) also rejected him for jobs.
Pendergrass, now 27, makes lattes at a Starbucks (SBUX) in
Philadelphia. The coffee chain doesn't use a screening firm for
entry-level hires. Pendergrass earns $17,000 a year, or 30% less than
he did at Rite Aid, and fears his career has been derailed. "I worked
hard in that store, and none of this stuff was true," he says. "I
would be locked up somewhere if I stole $7,000."
Rite Aid declines to comment. A ChoicePoint spokeswoman says the
company's background report merely conveyed information provided by a
former employer.
FAT PROFITS
Background screening has become a highly profitable corner of the HR
world. At the screening division of First Advantage (FADV), based in
Poway, Calif., profits soared 47% last year, to $29 million; revenue
grew 20%, to $233 million. HireRight (HIRE), based in Irvine, Calif.,
reported that earnings jumped 44%, to $9 million, last year on
revenues of $69 million. To grab a piece of this growing market, Reed
Elsevier Group (RUK), the Anglo-Dutch information provider, agreed to
acquire ChoicePoint for $4.1 billion in February—at a 50% premium to
its stock price.
Industry surveys show why Reed Elsevier was eager to expand its
screening business. In a 2004 study by the Society for Human Resource
Management, 96% of personnel executives said their companies conduct
background checks on job candidates, up from 51% in 1996. Two-thirds
of larger companies say they outsource screening, and many now vet
current employees in addition to applicants.
Screening often goes far beyond the familiar checking of public
criminal records. For $60 to $80 per applicant, ChoicePoint and its
rivals assemble digital dossiers of educational degrees and credit
histories as well as interviews with friends, past bosses, and
colleagues. Call-center workers wearing headsets inquire about work
habits, personal character, and drug or alcohol problems. Just by dint
of their heft and permanence, the proprietary data caches they compile
can seem authoritative, even though the information sometimes contains
errors, innuendos, or outright falsehoods.
"You won't believe what people tell you," says Mary Beth Gotshall, who
has done interviews since 1999 at Employment Background
Investigations, a midsize firm in Owings Mills, Md. She and colleagues
have collected comments from a father who said he would never rehire
his son because he had missed so much work at a family business.
Another former boss accused an applicant of stealing and demanded
Employment Background help find him. (The firm declined.) "We put
everything in there," Gotshall says while juggling employment checks
for retailer Ikea, a Pittsburgh medical clinic, and a Texas
engineering firm. Her boss, Richard Kurland, chief executive of
Employment Background, says the company goes to great lengths to be
accurate. "We have a huge responsibility to mankind," he adds.
But Lester Rosen, a veteran in the industry and president of
Employment Screening Resources in Novato, Calif., says: "Essentially,
it's the Wild, Wild West. It's an unregulated industry with easy money
and not a huge emphasis on compliance or on hiring quality people" to
do the screening.
Theron Carter, a 61-year-old unemployed truck driver in Middleville,
Mich., is waiting for his name to be cleared in a database used widely
in the transportation business. In May, 2006, a U.S. Labor Dept.
administrative law judge ruled that Carter was wrongly terminated by
Marten Transport (MRTN) for making legitimate complaints about the
safety of his 18-wheel truck. He had hauled loads for the Mondovi
(Wis.) company for only two weeks before being fired in June, 2005.
The judge awarded him more than $31,000 in damages and back pay and
ordered Marten Transport to delete "any unfavorable work record
information" in a report compiled by USIS, a large screening company
in Falls Church, Va. Once an arm of the federal Office of Personnel
Management, USIS was privatized in 1996. It still screens government
workers and runs an employment-history database used by 2,500
transport companies called Drive-A-Check, or DAC.
Despite his legal victory, Carter's DAC report still says Marten
Transport dismissed him for "excessive complaints" and a "company
policy violation." "No one will hire me," says Carter, who withdrew
$50,000 from retirement savings to support his wife and himself.
Trucking company J.B. Hunt Transport Services (JBHT) "told me I had
excessive complaints and wouldn't hire me. I told them I won my case."
Hunt declines to comment.
Marten Transport has appealed the Labor Dept. ruling. A company
attorney, Stephen DiTullio, says it would be "fraudulent" for the
carrier to remove the reference to excessive grievances from Carter's
DAC file. "That was an accurate portrayal of what led to his
termination," DiTullio says. Marten Transport has addressed Carter's
safety concerns, he adds.
John Griffith, 47, won a similar Labor Dept. ruling in October, 2003,
against his former employer, Atlantic Inland Carrier. The
administrative law judge ruled that the company wrongly fired Griffith
in December, 2001, for complaining about the safety of his truck and
ordered Atlantic Inland to remove unfavorable information from his DAC
record.
Someone at Atlantic Inland—it's not clear who—had told DAC that
Griffith was terminated and not eligible to be rehired because of his
grievances. The company eventually deleted that information in
January, 2004—more than two years after it was posted. During that
time, Griffith says, it was hard to find trucking work. The Aiken
(S.C.) resident turned to lower-paying odd jobs, although he recently
got back behind the wheel making deliveries for a nursery. "Truck
drivers live and die by DAC," he says. "They can ruin a driver's
career with a few clicks of their mouse."
LIVING IN FEAR
USIS declines to comment on any specific cases. Gripes about its
database have made "DAC" a popular verb in the industry, with drivers
lamenting they have "been DAC-ed." Responding to the anxiety
surrounding the database, USIS officials have defended their methods
on radio interview shows aimed at truckers. They argue that screening
is legally required, generally accurate, and keeps bad drivers off the
road.
But Kristen Turley, director of market development and communications
at USIS' commercial-services unit in Tulsa, concedes that no system is
immune to mistakes and misuse. "There is a chance somebody who holds a
grudge will put negative information in the database," she says. "We
are not trying to blackball drivers or ruin their chance to get a
job." When a driver disputes a background report, USIS asks its
sources for proof supporting negative comments, she says. USIS doesn't
seek such evidence up front. "Ideally that would be a good solution,"
Turley says, but it could dissuade past employers from submitting
information in the first place.
The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act covers background screeners, but
it hasn't been aggressively enforced. The law says screeners must use
"reasonable procedures" to ensure "maximum possible accuracy." It also
requires employers to give a copy of background reports to rejected
applicants. An applicant can dispute the information, but the Federal
Trade Commission has said employers must wait only five business days
before hiring someone else, meaning that objections frequently become
moot. Lately the agency has focused more on identity theft than on
screening, Rebecca Kuehn, assistant director for privacy and identity
protection, says.
ChoicePoint has run into trouble because of how it has disseminated
personal data. A 1997 spin-off from credit bureau Equifax (EFX), the
company stumbled in 2004, when it offered a $40 software package at
Sam's Club (WMT) stores that allowed small businesses to obtain
personal information on applicants. The company dropped the product
after privacy advocates pointed out that it wasn't verifying whether
users had a business license and a legitimate purpose for searching,
as opposed to snooping on a neighbor or old boyfriend.
Then, in 2005, it came to light that ChoicePoint had given identity
thieves pretending to be small business clients seeking background
checks access to people's addresses, Social Security numbers, and
dates of birth. ChoicePoint agreed in 2006 to pay a $10 million civil
penalty to the FTC and $5 million more to compensate 160,000 consumers
whose information had been compromised.
LURING CONSUMERS
Today, ChoicePoint bills itself as the gold standard in screening.
"The big issue for us is making sure we're doing things as accurately
as possible," says Bill Whitford, a senior vice-president. The company
conducts 10 million background checks annually and estimates it has
about 20% of the U.S. market. "The number of complaints vs.
transactions is very low," says Katherine Bryant, vice-president for
consumer advocacy. The FTC has logged 695 complaints against
ChoicePoint since 2005, some of which related to the identity-theft
episode. USIS had the second-highest total, with 89.
ChoicePoint now is trying to draw consumers as clients. It sells a
preemployment self-check to people who want a preview of what an
employer would learn about them. These reports cost from $24.95 to as
much as $75, depending on how customized they are. Savvy consumers can
save themselves some money: Under federal law, individuals are
entitled to a copy of any background report compiled by a screening
company for a minimal fee, generally $10 or less.
Along with price, screening firms compete on speed. HRPLUS, in
Evergreen, Colo., offers five reference interviews within 72 hours. At
Employment Background Investigations, a whiteboard hanging on a
cubicle wall recently celebrated the clearing of 1,025 applicants in
one week by a group of about two dozen screeners, a company record.
Screening firms say their services are vital. In many industries, they
argue, employers don't seek prosecution of minor infractions but are
willing to report them to employment databases. USIS says its retail
records have identified more than 30,000 applicants with histories of
theft in just the past few years. All theft reports are re-verified
with the employer that submitted them before being shared with an
inquiring company, USIS says. But mistakes occur, and once a worker is
flagged, it can be nearly impossible to work again in retail.
Two screening companies got it wrong in the case of Ingrid Morales. In
2001, Morales, then 26, was fired after only a month as a makeup
artist at a Saks Fifth Avenue (SKS) store in Boca Raton, Fla. Saks
cited a report supplied by a retail database, now owned by USIS, and a
smaller Florida screening firm, Merchants Security Exchange. The
screeners said she had been terminated from a Burdines department
store in 1995 for "unauthorized taking of merchandise" valued in the
hundreds of dollars. Morales denied the theft allegations. But it
wasn't until she sued Burdines and the screening firms in federal
court later in 2001 that the information was corrected. USIS deleted
the negative reference, and Merchants Security changed her file so
that it noted merely a company "policy violation" in connection with
her use of an employee-discount card.
A judge dismissed her suit in 2003, ruling that she had not been
defamed by Burdines, a part of what is now Macy's, and that the
screening firms hadn't violated the law. A spokesman for MAF
Background Screening, previously known as Merchants Security, says
that "mistakes do happen" and that the Morales case illustrates why
applicants should review their background reports. USIS and Macy's
decline to comment.
Morales, now 33 and the mother of three children, says that her firing
and inability to find work again at store cosmetics counters put her
family in a financial bind for several years. Her husband's
construction business has since taken off, and she helps manage it
from home. But she's still bitter about the background report. "It
ruined my whole career, and I felt very humiliated," she says. "They
can put whatever they want in your file, and you can't get work."
morgan
Jun 9, 2008 10:14 PM GMT
what many are failing to realize is that choicepoint is a satabase
company. A database is the LEAST accurate of any type of search. THey
can be outdated, and in this case inaccurate. What these companies is
missing is that just becasue someone says something negative about a
previous employee, doe nto mean that it ALL can be leagally disclosed
to the next employer. Often times, there is personal vendeta, and or
slanderous comments made. These are the types of things that need to
be brought to the attnetion of the employer, yet doing so in a
compliant manner. Just by shoveling everything into a database doe not
make it right. keep i nmind that choicepoint is not the most reputable
as they recently settled a $14 million lawsuit for losing sensitive
information. Databases are virtually worthless, inaccurate, and can
destroy either a company or a person seeking employment.
BloggerRadio
Jun 7, 2008 10:42 PM GMT
WTF!? Lemme get these commenters' comments straight. The article is
about the ACCURACY of the checks, NOT about the need for checks
themselves. But, some girlie-men commenters are droning-on about their
fears of their own shadows. They sound a great deal like members of
the Bush administration trying to kill FISA or sumptin'. According to
those geniuses it's 'OK' if the process itself gets-it-wrong and
occasionally ruins a few lives, as long as the Corporatocracy makes a
tiddy profit in the process, and is not held accountable. Coz that
same flawed process MIGHT protect your GrandMa. Wowzers, it must be
sad to be YOU. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Ben
Franklin As for the one that includes a link to official statistics,
here is my question: sure, a background check might statistically
predict a potential second-offender, but Riddle me this Batman, how
does your overly paranoid self predict the FIRST offender, coz every
2nd offender was once a 1st offender. Making a profit spreading the
equivalent of rumors about individuals is fine, as long as it cost the
seller $2M-per mistake.
Dan
Jun 4, 2008 5:39 PM GMT
Anyone ever been a victim of identity theft? I have. Got accused of
passing bad checks. Luckily, security cameras proved otherwise, and my
boss vouched for me being in the office at the time of the fraudulent
activities. Also read about 3,000 people who were "accidentally" put
on a sex offender watchlist. My point is that these systems are
designed to provide "security." But, much like the systems put in
place post-9/11, they do nothing more than threaten the very citizens
they proclaim to "protect." Worst case, if someone commits a crime,
and they serve their time, they need to be able to get a job
somewhere. Otherwise, crime will be their only option. Think, people.
Think! We need to stop relying on companies, corporations and
government agencies to protect us. We need to protect ourselves.
FREEDOM!
Edwin Chambers
Jun 4, 2008 1:53 PM GMT
"Think about your place of employment...do you want to work with
criminals?" If by criminal you mean someone who breaks the law, then
every single person in the United States of America is a criminal.
There are so many laws here that it is literally impossible to not
break some. That's why we have the highest incarceration rate in the
world. Apparently this country is becoming centered on ruining the
lives of its citizens. These lying scum background check and credit
reporting agencies just make ruining lives a little easier.
J. Green
Jun 4, 2008 5:58 AM GMT
So you're telling me that if I am a dishonest employer or boss who
wishes to get even with a former employee, the only thing I would have
to do just report fraudulent information to one of these companies to
ruin their life.... Regulated or not, something is wrong with a system
that makes it hard for someone to redeem themselves even if the only
mistake that you have made is just pissing someone off, let alone make
it hard to survive and make a living. I should not have to walk on egg
shells to ensure my job security or ability to gain employment.
Marva
Jun 3, 2008 5:21 PM GMT
I think that many companies are in the business of profiting from the
demise of others. While some do so in good conscience others are
motivated by profit. The reality is that the Private sector manipulate
the loop holes of the laws and profit from the stupidity of many of
those who represents us. Until the Public sector can do a better job
of protecting us don't expect the Private sector to baby sit us. As a
consumer try to make sense of the laws and know your right as a
consumer. Call your local representatives and ask for guidance, call
your local tv or national shows and publicize these occurences. The
more we shut up the more we put up with from unethical business
practices. "an educated consumer" is the private sector worse
nightmare.
Joe Sixpack
Jun 3, 2008 2:28 PM GMT
Oh, wait. That is now Joe 12 pack as they have stopped selling six
packs. Only in America can someone's life be ruined by an industry
looking to make a buck off information - accurate or not. Just stop
and think about it - your life revolves around credit bureaus and
screening companies. And there is little recourse for false or
inaccurate reporting. We have billions of laws and regulations to
protect us - yet this white collar crime is still legal. America is
the only advanced country where it is legal to ruin someone's life. Of
course this exists only because of Washington is for sale.
Anthony
Jun 2, 2008 10:03 PM GMT
My brother, a US citizen, was denied a job by Target because Choice
Point purported that there was an "identity issue with his SS#".
Instead of fighting with ChoicePoint he took a job elsewhere using the
SS# that he has always had. The US Congress needs to look into these
horror stories.
michael
Jun 2, 2008 9:55 PM GMT
Oh yeah, credit agencies are regulated.... But try and get something
removed if it is erroneaous. It takes months if not years to get
something removed. Welcome to America land of the free and home of the
punitive society.
dxf
Jun 2, 2008 7:51 PM GMT
Another example of how the ruling class in America finds ways to
control the rest of the population. These folks with a record with
CheckPoint could sue for damages, but how much could you possibly sue
for "loss of earnings" if all you do is work in retail? 100k? 200k?
tops. Not that much in the grand scheme of things. But if somebody
with an average salary of 250k+ gets erroniously snared by Checkpoint,
could be a whopper of a settlement. This is just a tool to keep the
working class fearful and in-line. Notice, the government is in no
hurry to curtail or regulate this industry.
Minority Report, Rev 1.0
Jun 2, 2008 7:26 AM GMT
ChoicePoint is also one of many firms that Homeland Security and other
government departments use to gather information on US citizens that
they are otherwise prohibited from obtaining directly. Getting
errorneously ensnared by ChoicePoint's machinery would be bad enough
-- imagine getting crushed by government bureaucracy as well.
Jade
Jun 1, 2008 8:33 PM GMT
How about the fact that the Choicepoint Company put the information
there just because they "heard it from a former employer"??! There
should be some sort of requirement for proof, not just hearsay. I'm
sure there are disgruntled employers just like there are disgruntled
employees.
Jonathan
May 30, 2008 11:20 PM GMT
If "consumers" (as "individuals" are demeaningly called) have rights,
then why, as conditions of employment, must I allow employers to
gossip about me yet am perpetually enjoined from discussing my
experiences with my former employers?
Rich Desmond
May 30, 2008 9:06 PM GMT
I'm sure all this high quality data minig is brought to you by people
trained in the nuances of Guantanamo Lodgings and Leisurely Air Travel
"The slowest with the least'
CANTHONY
May 30, 2008 8:29 PM GMT
ChoicePoint and similar companies could care less concerning the well
being of the individuals that they collect background information on.
Huge errors are made daily and I challenge them to deny this fact.
What should be done to correct this is simple. The law should clearly
state that any information reported which is proven false, a minimum
of $1,000,000 per offense should be paid directly to the individual
hurt. This would force them to check out every incident rather than
just report it to the companies seeking the background check.
ChoicePoint
May 30, 2008 7:37 PM GMT
recently my friend got a job in big firm. But unfortunately choice
point report that he never worked in one of his previous employer. My
friend had to actually called his previous employer and get the
correct information. since the previous employer was a small firm,
they did not keep records for more than 5 years. But choicepoint
simply reported that the person is lying about his previous
experience.
NDP
May 30, 2008 6:59 PM GMT
If everyone refuses to let employers do a background check, then the
employers will stop using these companies. Even though I have nothing
to hide, I will not allow a company to do a background check on me. It
is just the principle of the matter.
QuestionAuthority
May 30, 2008 5:02 PM GMT
No one checks the checkers, in which I include the background
companies themselves as well as their employees. There is little
recourse besides a lawsuit against the company providing the report.
Perhaps if the name of the reference that made the comments was part
of the file, managers would be more careful about what they said that
couldn't be proved by documented evidence if challenged. Once again,
Corporate America is allowed to run roughshod over American's civil
rights. The response by the ChoicePoint representative that "...the
company's background report merely conveyed information provided by a
former employer" is bogus on the face of it - a dodge of
responsibility for their product. Why would anyone want to buy their
"product" if they don't bother to verify the accuracy of the
information they provide? It sounds like they are charging good money
for spreading vicious rumors collected from disgruntled managers about
workers that can't even fight back. There is a definite need here to
level the playing field for the people being reported on.
Henry
May 30, 2008 3:49 PM GMT
My question is this: who checks the checkers? Can they be trusted with
all of this personal information?
random
May 30, 2008 3:44 PM GMT
Why would background checking agencies let allegations that have not
been proven in a court of law carry the same weight as a conviction?
Personal opinions and finger pointing are inadmissible in court as
evidence, so why would they be a-ok during a background check? More
alarming is that employers are placing all their trust in reports of
personal gripes and unproven allegations when making their decisions.
Who knows if your former boss is in a bad mood and decides to smear
you in an interview? He could kill your career while venting his
frustration on a random day. That's just plain scary.
Susan
May 30, 2008 3:33 PM GMT
This is very scary! It means that, if you have a boss who is petty and
makes a note of anything you do that they don't like, they can give
that a 'title', you will have that in your permanent file and it will
follow you everywhere. There should be some protection for employees.
dw
May 30, 2008 3:25 PM GMT
I don't get it. why do we give these folks protection from their
mistakes? How is that helping any one? we had tort laws because to
protect our selves against others who have injured us. Now, that seems
to only apply business. Maybe we need to remove their protection and
see how they like it? bad information is not helping any one. if the
only way to clean it up is if you can hold the reporter and provider
of the information, then thats the way it has to be done.
Karl
May 30, 2008 1:51 PM GMT
What if the owner of a company is corrupt and he or she decides that a
corrupt employee would be a perfect match at his or her company?
Background checks are WORTHLESS in this regard!! And what happens if
the person who is hired decides to become corrupt AFTER their
employment? Just because someone passes a background check in 1999
doesn't mean that they stay "clean" forever, does it?!! Another
example of the USA's "broken" system!!! I wonder how many employees,
including managers & owners, would pass a surprise DRUG TEST right
now?!! The unemployment rate would probably go from 5.1% to 35% in one
day!!!! Don't believe me? THEN DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sally in chicago
May 30, 2008 1:47 PM GMT
this is what happens when you go digital. Everything is online and
expedient. Instead of relying on references from employers,
employees...etc. used to be you would go into a (utility) company and
take a test. if you passed at 75% or more you were put on a list --
like civil service -- and called when an opening occurred. People went
on faith and instinct.
shirley
Jun 1, 2008 1:17 AM GMT
Choice Point may strive for accuracy but they sure fall short! So they
don�??t only do job checks on people. They had my father listed as
having an accident with a car he never has owned or driven. He
didn�??t have any accident. He wanted to change insurance companies,
but they sure messed him up! Where do they get their inaccurate info
from?
GPS
May 30, 2008 5:33 PM GMT
Credit scoring is not an accurate measure of a person's worth..like
the "free credit report.com" commercials seem to suggest. We are all
just one medical bill, no matter how rich or poor you are; away from a
credit reporting agency. If someone files a frivilous suit it still
counts against your score. We are all victims of the big credit
bureaus, they get paid remember to report on individuals, so it is in
their best intrest to have inaccurate and outdated info..so to be
denied a job due to credit is a form of being in a debtors prison, how
can you get out of debt if you cant get a job?? Its a form of
extortion "dont owe the bill? tough we will report you to a credit
bureau" And I also do not think any criminal things should be on
anyones record after say 20 years of being totally clean..especially
if they didnt go to jail or anything. People change and grow and when
people are young they do stupid things sometimes, and shouldnt have to
pay for the rest of their entire lives...I dont have ANY of these
problems, I think the system is outdated and unfair..and as far as
this "subprime" mortgage crisis, most of the foreclosures resulted
from greedy investors/upper class speculators
Aaron
May 30, 2008 5:04 PM GMT
Background checks = de facto debtors prison.
isaac
May 30, 2008 4:58 PM GMT
America is fascist and is run by its corporations, so this is to be
expected. How american to have a company like choicepoint...how
american....
Bob
May 30, 2008 4:13 PM GMT
Mike, let me clarify some things. The firms are largely immune from
exposure when the decision not to hire someone can be based on the
report they receive from the screeneing service. Similar to a credit
report, firms can just point the finger to the report to justify their
decision and it is the screening company who is responsible for
explaining the results not the company. The 5 business days is the
period in which the applicant can make an "Adverse Action" claim. This
is not a law, but rather a commonly accepeted rule of thumb. You just
can't have someone coming back in 2 weeks and say I don't think this
is right. The screening company has up to 30 days to complete the
research as mandated in the FCRA. It is up to the firm however to
provide the applicant with a pre-adverse action disclosure and an
adverse action letter if they don't hire a person based in the
information contained in the report. Otherwise, they can be held
liable for violating the FCRA. If a company has an opportunity to
place the blame for the reason they are not hiring you somewhere else;
believe they will do it.
hass
May 30, 2008 3:09 PM GMT
We're living in a surveillance society. I see a new business
opportunity for companies that will specialize in cleaning up (rich)
people's backgrounds. Nevermind the quality of the data accumulated.
Think, people, think. If you are rejected for a background check,
most firms won't tell you that's the reason, because of the potential
lawsuits & complications. They'll simply say someone else is more
qualified, end of discussion. If you ARE one of the very very few who
is actually told this truth, you have 5 days to get it investigated,
which is far, far too short a time period for anyone to get anything
done with any of these background-checking firms.
Jun 9, 2008 10:14 PM GMT
what many are failing to realize is that choicepoint is a satabase
company. A database is the LEAST accurate of any type of search. THey
can be outdated, and in this case inaccurate. What these companies is
missing is that just becasue someone says something negative about a
previous employee, doe nto mean that it ALL can be leagally disclosed
to the next employer. Often times, there is personal vendeta, and or
slanderous comments made. These are the types of things that need to
be brought to the attnetion of the employer, yet doing so in a
compliant manner. Just by shoveling everything into a database doe not
make it right. keep i nmind that choicepoint is not the most reputable
as they recently settled a $14 million lawsuit for losing sensitive
information. Databases are virtually worthless, inaccurate, and can
destroy either a company or a person seeking employment.
BloggerRadio
Jun 7, 2008 10:42 PM GMT
WTF!? Lemme get these commenters' comments straight. The article is
about the ACCURACY of the checks, NOT about the need for checks
themselves. But, some girlie-men commenters are droning-on about their
fears of their own shadows. They sound a great deal like members of
the Bush administration trying to kill FISA or sumptin'. According to
those geniuses it's 'OK' if the process itself gets-it-wrong and
occasionally ruins a few lives, as long as the Corporatocracy makes a
tiddy profit in the process, and is not held accountable. Coz that
same flawed process MIGHT protect your GrandMa. Wowzers, it must be
sad to be YOU. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Ben
Franklin As for the one that includes a link to official statistics,
here is my question: sure, a background check might statistically
predict a potential second-offender, but Riddle me this Batman, how
does your overly paranoid self predict the FIRST offender, coz every
2nd offender was once a 1st offender. Making a profit spreading the
equivalent of rumors about individuals is fine, as long as it cost the
seller $2M-per mistake.
Dan
Jun 4, 2008 5:39 PM GMT
Anyone ever been a victim of identity theft? I have. Got accused of
passing bad checks. Luckily, security cameras proved otherwise, and my
boss vouched for me being in the office at the time of the fraudulent
activities. Also read about 3,000 people who were "accidentally" put
on a sex offender watchlist. My point is that these systems are
designed to provide "security." But, much like the systems put in
place post-9/11, they do nothing more than threaten the very citizens
they proclaim to "protect." Worst case, if someone commits a crime,
and they serve their time, they need to be able to get a job
somewhere. Otherwise, crime will be their only option. Think, people.
Think! We need to stop relying on companies, corporations and
government agencies to protect us. We need to protect ourselves.
FREEDOM!
Edwin Chambers
Jun 4, 2008 1:53 PM GMT
"Think about your place of employment...do you want to work with
criminals?" If by criminal you mean someone who breaks the law, then
every single person in the United States of America is a criminal.
There are so many laws here that it is literally impossible to not
break some. That's why we have the highest incarceration rate in the
world. Apparently this country is becoming centered on ruining the
lives of its citizens. These lying scum background check and credit
reporting agencies just make ruining lives a little easier.
J. Green
Jun 4, 2008 5:58 AM GMT
So you're telling me that if I am a dishonest employer or boss who
wishes to get even with a former employee, the only thing I would have
to do just report fraudulent information to one of these companies to
ruin their life.... Regulated or not, something is wrong with a system
that makes it hard for someone to redeem themselves even if the only
mistake that you have made is just pissing someone off, let alone make
it hard to survive and make a living. I should not have to walk on egg
shells to ensure my job security or ability to gain employment.
Marva
Jun 3, 2008 5:21 PM GMT
I think that many companies are in the business of profiting from the
demise of others. While some do so in good conscience others are
motivated by profit. The reality is that the Private sector manipulate
the loop holes of the laws and profit from the stupidity of many of
those who represents us. Until the Public sector can do a better job
of protecting us don't expect the Private sector to baby sit us. As a
consumer try to make sense of the laws and know your right as a
consumer. Call your local representatives and ask for guidance, call
your local tv or national shows and publicize these occurences. The
more we shut up the more we put up with from unethical business
practices. "an educated consumer" is the private sector worse
nightmare.
Joe Sixpack
Jun 3, 2008 2:28 PM GMT
Oh, wait. That is now Joe 12 pack as they have stopped selling six
packs. Only in America can someone's life be ruined by an industry
looking to make a buck off information - accurate or not. Just stop
and think about it - your life revolves around credit bureaus and
screening companies. And there is little recourse for false or
inaccurate reporting. We have billions of laws and regulations to
protect us - yet this white collar crime is still legal. America is
the only advanced country where it is legal to ruin someone's life. Of
course this exists only because of Washington is for sale.
Anthony
Jun 2, 2008 10:03 PM GMT
My brother, a US citizen, was denied a job by Target because Choice
Point purported that there was an "identity issue with his SS#".
Instead of fighting with ChoicePoint he took a job elsewhere using the
SS# that he has always had. The US Congress needs to look into these
horror stories.
michael
Jun 2, 2008 9:55 PM GMT
Oh yeah, credit agencies are regulated.... But try and get something
removed if it is erroneaous. It takes months if not years to get
something removed. Welcome to America land of the free and home of the
punitive society.
dxf
Jun 2, 2008 7:51 PM GMT
Another example of how the ruling class in America finds ways to
control the rest of the population. These folks with a record with
CheckPoint could sue for damages, but how much could you possibly sue
for "loss of earnings" if all you do is work in retail? 100k? 200k?
tops. Not that much in the grand scheme of things. But if somebody
with an average salary of 250k+ gets erroniously snared by Checkpoint,
could be a whopper of a settlement. This is just a tool to keep the
working class fearful and in-line. Notice, the government is in no
hurry to curtail or regulate this industry.
Minority Report, Rev 1.0
Jun 2, 2008 7:26 AM GMT
ChoicePoint is also one of many firms that Homeland Security and other
government departments use to gather information on US citizens that
they are otherwise prohibited from obtaining directly. Getting
errorneously ensnared by ChoicePoint's machinery would be bad enough
-- imagine getting crushed by government bureaucracy as well.
Jade
Jun 1, 2008 8:33 PM GMT
How about the fact that the Choicepoint Company put the information
there just because they "heard it from a former employer"??! There
should be some sort of requirement for proof, not just hearsay. I'm
sure there are disgruntled employers just like there are disgruntled
employees.
Jonathan
May 30, 2008 11:20 PM GMT
If "consumers" (as "individuals" are demeaningly called) have rights,
then why, as conditions of employment, must I allow employers to
gossip about me yet am perpetually enjoined from discussing my
experiences with my former employers?
Rich Desmond
May 30, 2008 9:06 PM GMT
I'm sure all this high quality data minig is brought to you by people
trained in the nuances of Guantanamo Lodgings and Leisurely Air Travel
"The slowest with the least'
CANTHONY
May 30, 2008 8:29 PM GMT
ChoicePoint and similar companies could care less concerning the well
being of the individuals that they collect background information on.
Huge errors are made daily and I challenge them to deny this fact.
What should be done to correct this is simple. The law should clearly
state that any information reported which is proven false, a minimum
of $1,000,000 per offense should be paid directly to the individual
hurt. This would force them to check out every incident rather than
just report it to the companies seeking the background check.
ChoicePoint
May 30, 2008 7:37 PM GMT
recently my friend got a job in big firm. But unfortunately choice
point report that he never worked in one of his previous employer. My
friend had to actually called his previous employer and get the
correct information. since the previous employer was a small firm,
they did not keep records for more than 5 years. But choicepoint
simply reported that the person is lying about his previous
experience.
NDP
May 30, 2008 6:59 PM GMT
If everyone refuses to let employers do a background check, then the
employers will stop using these companies. Even though I have nothing
to hide, I will not allow a company to do a background check on me. It
is just the principle of the matter.
QuestionAuthority
May 30, 2008 5:02 PM GMT
No one checks the checkers, in which I include the background
companies themselves as well as their employees. There is little
recourse besides a lawsuit against the company providing the report.
Perhaps if the name of the reference that made the comments was part
of the file, managers would be more careful about what they said that
couldn't be proved by documented evidence if challenged. Once again,
Corporate America is allowed to run roughshod over American's civil
rights. The response by the ChoicePoint representative that "...the
company's background report merely conveyed information provided by a
former employer" is bogus on the face of it - a dodge of
responsibility for their product. Why would anyone want to buy their
"product" if they don't bother to verify the accuracy of the
information they provide? It sounds like they are charging good money
for spreading vicious rumors collected from disgruntled managers about
workers that can't even fight back. There is a definite need here to
level the playing field for the people being reported on.
Henry
May 30, 2008 3:49 PM GMT
My question is this: who checks the checkers? Can they be trusted with
all of this personal information?
random
May 30, 2008 3:44 PM GMT
Why would background checking agencies let allegations that have not
been proven in a court of law carry the same weight as a conviction?
Personal opinions and finger pointing are inadmissible in court as
evidence, so why would they be a-ok during a background check? More
alarming is that employers are placing all their trust in reports of
personal gripes and unproven allegations when making their decisions.
Who knows if your former boss is in a bad mood and decides to smear
you in an interview? He could kill your career while venting his
frustration on a random day. That's just plain scary.
Susan
May 30, 2008 3:33 PM GMT
This is very scary! It means that, if you have a boss who is petty and
makes a note of anything you do that they don't like, they can give
that a 'title', you will have that in your permanent file and it will
follow you everywhere. There should be some protection for employees.
dw
May 30, 2008 3:25 PM GMT
I don't get it. why do we give these folks protection from their
mistakes? How is that helping any one? we had tort laws because to
protect our selves against others who have injured us. Now, that seems
to only apply business. Maybe we need to remove their protection and
see how they like it? bad information is not helping any one. if the
only way to clean it up is if you can hold the reporter and provider
of the information, then thats the way it has to be done.
Karl
May 30, 2008 1:51 PM GMT
What if the owner of a company is corrupt and he or she decides that a
corrupt employee would be a perfect match at his or her company?
Background checks are WORTHLESS in this regard!! And what happens if
the person who is hired decides to become corrupt AFTER their
employment? Just because someone passes a background check in 1999
doesn't mean that they stay "clean" forever, does it?!! Another
example of the USA's "broken" system!!! I wonder how many employees,
including managers & owners, would pass a surprise DRUG TEST right
now?!! The unemployment rate would probably go from 5.1% to 35% in one
day!!!! Don't believe me? THEN DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sally in chicago
May 30, 2008 1:47 PM GMT
this is what happens when you go digital. Everything is online and
expedient. Instead of relying on references from employers,
employees...etc. used to be you would go into a (utility) company and
take a test. if you passed at 75% or more you were put on a list --
like civil service -- and called when an opening occurred. People went
on faith and instinct.
shirley
Jun 1, 2008 1:17 AM GMT
Choice Point may strive for accuracy but they sure fall short! So they
don�??t only do job checks on people. They had my father listed as
having an accident with a car he never has owned or driven. He
didn�??t have any accident. He wanted to change insurance companies,
but they sure messed him up! Where do they get their inaccurate info
from?
GPS
May 30, 2008 5:33 PM GMT
Credit scoring is not an accurate measure of a person's worth..like
the "free credit report.com" commercials seem to suggest. We are all
just one medical bill, no matter how rich or poor you are; away from a
credit reporting agency. If someone files a frivilous suit it still
counts against your score. We are all victims of the big credit
bureaus, they get paid remember to report on individuals, so it is in
their best intrest to have inaccurate and outdated info..so to be
denied a job due to credit is a form of being in a debtors prison, how
can you get out of debt if you cant get a job?? Its a form of
extortion "dont owe the bill? tough we will report you to a credit
bureau" And I also do not think any criminal things should be on
anyones record after say 20 years of being totally clean..especially
if they didnt go to jail or anything. People change and grow and when
people are young they do stupid things sometimes, and shouldnt have to
pay for the rest of their entire lives...I dont have ANY of these
problems, I think the system is outdated and unfair..and as far as
this "subprime" mortgage crisis, most of the foreclosures resulted
from greedy investors/upper class speculators
Aaron
May 30, 2008 5:04 PM GMT
Background checks = de facto debtors prison.
isaac
May 30, 2008 4:58 PM GMT
America is fascist and is run by its corporations, so this is to be
expected. How american to have a company like choicepoint...how
american....
Bob
May 30, 2008 4:13 PM GMT
Mike, let me clarify some things. The firms are largely immune from
exposure when the decision not to hire someone can be based on the
report they receive from the screeneing service. Similar to a credit
report, firms can just point the finger to the report to justify their
decision and it is the screening company who is responsible for
explaining the results not the company. The 5 business days is the
period in which the applicant can make an "Adverse Action" claim. This
is not a law, but rather a commonly accepeted rule of thumb. You just
can't have someone coming back in 2 weeks and say I don't think this
is right. The screening company has up to 30 days to complete the
research as mandated in the FCRA. It is up to the firm however to
provide the applicant with a pre-adverse action disclosure and an
adverse action letter if they don't hire a person based in the
information contained in the report. Otherwise, they can be held
liable for violating the FCRA. If a company has an opportunity to
place the blame for the reason they are not hiring you somewhere else;
believe they will do it.
hass
May 30, 2008 3:09 PM GMT
We're living in a surveillance society. I see a new business
opportunity for companies that will specialize in cleaning up (rich)
people's backgrounds. Nevermind the quality of the data accumulated.
Think, people, think. If you are rejected for a background check,
most firms won't tell you that's the reason, because of the potential
lawsuits & complications. They'll simply say someone else is more
qualified, end of discussion. If you ARE one of the very very few who
is actually told this truth, you have 5 days to get it investigated,
which is far, far too short a time period for anyone to get anything
done with any of these background-checking firms.
,
Comment